Redefining Aggression - PokerAce Hud

[bhudson]

OK... isn't this just bet% + raise%?

(Which I think is fine as an indicator of aggression)

[PokerAce]

It's close, but not exactly.

I actually added those stats as well: Bet Street %, Check Raise Street %, and Raise Street %.

[bhudson]

Oh ok, you don't have times_check(ed) in there.

Why do you think it works better without the checks? As far as classifications with limited context go, they would be very close, with the main difference being the previous action facing the player (bet/raise vs check), IMHO.

[PokerAce]

I've decided that checking should be considered a neutral action. Check raising is aggressive while check folding/calling is passive. Since there's no way to determine the player's motive, it's better just to remove them from the formula all together.

[Mendacious]

Good move! On making checking neutral.

I think you ought to weight raising more than betting. Such as TA = Bets + 2xRaises / calls. I think raising is much more indicative of aggression than betting.

[PokerAce]

You might be onto something.

Perhaps we should make raising count as more aggressive than betting and calling as more passive than folding. So the formula would look like this:

(times_bet + (times_raised * 2)) / (times_bet + (times_raised * 2) + (times_called * 2) + times_folded)

Thoughts?

[Hoopster81]

Yes, I think you are really onto something

[Mendacious]

I think you could easily weight raising more than betting, and check raising more than both. I would not use folding at all. I think calling is the best denominator. Also, event though it is less than ideal, I think you want something that works across all games, Limit, PL and NL.

Thx. for asking, and good luck.

[Dan Mezick]

Check raise is not really 100% aggressive. It is often a probing manuever designed to see where you are (typically after the flop) and can accomplish certain other goals, like getting a free card (etc). The check raise is often used as a semi-defensive play early in the hand, such as when you hold 2nd pair after the flop and need to better define your opponents likely holding.

Consequently check-raising may not really apply here. As the final point, I notice that Doyle, arguably the definitive aggressive player, states in SS1.0 that he 'does not like' the check-raise, mainly because the opponent can GET AWAY when you use it.

Is the check-raise 100% indicative of pure aggression?

Probably not.